Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Iwo Jima
You previously stated (at least I think that it was you) that real estate would not be taxed, but as I read the bill, it is not excluded and seems to be included. Tell me why you think that real estate or land would not be subject to the NRST.

I think you must not be reading my posts quite correctly. Land is property that has been previously taxed (there is no such ting as "new" land), and is therefore exempt from taxes. Structures built on that land can be taxable, but structures existing as of the NRST switchover date would be considered "previosuly taxed", and not subject to tax on resale.

However, the price of a new home would be taxable, minus the value of the land it sits upon. Example: I buy a new house for $200,000, the assessment says the land is worth $120,000, therefore only $80,000 is taxable.

420 posted on 02/15/2005 11:45:26 AM PST by kevkrom (If people are free to do as they wish, they are almost certain not to do as Utopian planners wish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies ]


To: kevkrom

Under Section 2(a) 16, "used property" is property on which (A) tax has been paid or (B) held for other than for a business purpose on 12/31/06. I quite agree that there is no such thing as "new land" (other than volcanic lava), but that doesn't seem to be the definition. If land is held for other than business purposes on 12/31/06, then it would be exempt under subsection (B). But if land was held for a business purpose, then it would seem to be taxed the next time that it is sold.


422 posted on 02/15/2005 11:54:13 AM PST by Iwo Jima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson